Tree-based side pane with tab grouping

Bug #406062 reported by David Prieto
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
LinuxDC++
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Today, I have used direct connect for the first time, and wondered what client I should use. After investigating for some time, I've reached the conclusion that linuxdcpp was probably the best option, but after installing it I have to recognise I was pretty confused until I managed to find out what exactly I could do, and how.

I have seen this other client, dcsharp, which seems to be dead now. But the interface is really simple. The sidebar allows you to reach the different places you can be: the search, the hubs and the conversations, as well as keep an eye on things being uploaded and downloaded. You can access all that information easily, but it never gets in the way or make the screen feel "crammed".

I'm attaching a couple screenshots of dcsharp.

Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :
Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Steven Sheehy (steven-sheehy) wrote :

Not really sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be suggesting that we make our interface like dcsharp without specifying explicitly what interface features you like about dcsharp besides the sidebar. If it's just the sidebar you want, linuxdcpp can do that: Preferences -> Appearances -> Tab Position -> Left. We're open to suggestions on how we can improve the interface, we just need more concrete examples of what you'd like to see.

Changed in linuxdcpp:
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :

Hi Steven,

Well, being a total novice to DC, I don't really have anything specific that I put my finger on, but only a general feeling that the interface could be simplified. I think I could write down some specific things as I use the program and write requests for them.

Just to know, would suggestions based on gnome's HIG be considered?

Thanks in advance.

Revision history for this message
Steven Sheehy (steven-sheehy) wrote :

Yes, Gnome HIG sugggestions would be considered. And remember, one request per bug. You could try joining #linuxdc++@freenode and discussing your suggestions there as well.

Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :

Thanks Steven. I guess this bug could be closed then?

Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :

Since this bug is focused on the side pane, I think it could be renamed instead of closing it. There are several advantages to using a pane instead of tabs: it allows you to right-click items, it takes less space and categories can be collapsed, similar items are grouped and you can use icons, which improves recognition.

I have made several mockups of linuxdc++ using a side pane. The one in this post shows the main window with a hub selected in the pane.

Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :

This one shows the transfer window. It's based on bug #406298, "Merge transfers and queued files".

Revision history for this message
David Prieto (frandavid100-gmail) wrote :

This one shows the search window. There are a couple things missing there, but I think you can get the main idea.

Revision history for this message
Steven Sheehy (steven-sheehy) wrote :

I like the the idea of a side pane that can group the different windows together. It may additionally require a redesign of the other tabs due to the decreased horizontal space as you showed with your search mockup.

One of the questions I have is whether the single instance windows like public hubs, favorite hubs, etc. (in contrast to non-single instance windows like search, hub, pm, etc.) will always be present in the side pane or whether they disappear from the side pane when they are closed? And if they are always present (i.e. not closable), do they always stay in memory once opened? And in that case wouldn't it be confusing to have some of the items in the side pane that are closable and some that are not?

Razzloss, what do you think about the side pane? Or anyone else have any input on this since this is a pretty major UI change?

Changed in linuxdcpp:
status: Incomplete → New
summary: - Simpler interface, like dcsharp
+ Tree-based side pane with tab grouping
Revision history for this message
Razzloss (razzloss) wrote :

Ok, it seems that I can't give an intelligent answer to this. I've tried to write something and then erased the whole thing. This has now repeated itself at least 5 times...

The reason is that some of the ideas seem ok, but at the same time the other half of me is screaming: It's a waste of space. If this UI would be optional, then I'd have no problems with it, but can we really maintain 2 quite different UIs? Would it even make sense to try?

I'd probably have to see somewhat functional prototype, to decide if this is a good or not.

--RZ

Revision history for this message
Steven Sheehy (steven-sheehy) wrote :

I'm tentatively confirming this for now. I like the idea and I believe it would make the program cleaner and easier to use. Whether it will be optional or not is up in the air still.

David, can you please address my previous questions?

Razzloss, have you tried looking at dcsharp?

Changed in linuxdcpp:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Razzloss (razzloss) wrote :

I didn't really check dcsharp except the screenshots of it.

But I did move the tabs to the left on my laptops client to get used to the reduced screen space and it's ok for this screen. However with smaller vnc session (1024x768) I couldn't stand the narrower chat view...

Also are we going to completely remove the transfer pane like it's shown in the mockups?

--RZ

Revision history for this message
Steven Sheehy (steven-sheehy) wrote :

Well, merging transfers, finished and download queue is bug #406298, which you haven't weighed in on for or against it yet. Whether the pane is removed or not hasn't been decided. We could potentially merge them and keep them where it's at. Or we could make a separate tab/window. Or we could have both as an option. A merged transfers/finished/queue in a pane would be quite hard to view and wouldn't allow us to add new features like filtering or that pause all button somebody mentioned.

My vote is for a tree-based side pane with no transfers pane as the default configuration, and if the demand is great we can have tabs & transfer pane as an option.

Revision history for this message
lys (lys) wrote :

personally after 10 years odd using dc i prefer the dc++ type layout, if this is to be done it would be nice to have the option of swapping back to the layout we have now

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers